So many things unethical and typically immoral about this.
The sex of cis-sexuals does not have to be irreversible, nor must they be sterile for them to be recognized.
Sterilization under these circumstances is akin to genocide of a group of people.
It also completely disrgards those who canot have GRS due to medical reasons, leaving them in a potentially dangerous mixed state.
Not to mention those (somewhat more rare) TS that simply do not “feel” that area of their bodies one way or another. Forcing them to undergo surgery and all it’s risks is wrong.
Finally, there has been some amazing research this past year where it may be possible for trans people to use their own gonads to produce the hormones they need.
Dear friends at trans aide,
I write as the adviser to ILGA-Europe on the Council Europe
I hope I can clarify the situation regarding the Council of Europe for you, as what you say here is not quite correct. I am sorry not to write in French, but I would just confuse the situation more if I tried!
Two different institutions of the Council of Europe addressed the question of Trans sterilisation last year:
First, the Committee of Ministers. This consists of the governments of the 47 member states, and it published a very important document — a Recommendation to member states to combat discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation or gender identity.
Although much of the document is excellent, sadly, it carefully avoided any commitment to legal recognition of transgender persons without sterilisation, because the great majority of countries in Europe do not support this position. France was amongst the countries which were strongest in insisting on the removal of a reference to the word “sterilisation” from an early draft of the text. So it cannot be said that the French government said one thing at the Council of Europe, and did something different at home. Regrettably, it has been entirely consistent in opposing removal of the requirement for sterilisation both at the national level and international level.
The parliamentary assembly of the Council of Europe also addressed the question of sterilisation, and called for removal of the requirement. However, the assembly consists of delegates from national parliaments, and do not speak for their government. Their resolutions are advisory and do not represent the official position of the Council of Europe.
I see that two of your members are challenging the requirement for sterilisation in the French courts. It is very important that they do this, and if they are unsuccessful in the French courts, that they take their challenge to the European Court of Human Rights. If they were to win there, it would be a huge victory not just for Trans people in France, but for Trans people in all the many European countries that insist on sterilisation.
We would be very grateful if you could keep us informed of the progress with these important cases, and we wish Stephanie and Delphine every success.
ILGA Europe Council Europe adviser
65 years after the Nazi crimes of Dr Mangler that included forced sterilizations came to light. And what do we find in Europe in 2011?
People being forcibly sterilized by governments and doctors!
Pretty outrageous to say the least. Since when does ones ability or inability decide how one can be perceived in society? I thought we had moved on from the Middle Ages. Of course this has ramifications for non-trans women to, and here was I thinking France was way ahead of the game on transgender rights…
you want to support us?
> …He wrote: “The irreversible characteristic can result from
> hormonal treatment, which has the effect of altering certain
> physiological aspects of an individual, notably their fertility,
> which can itself be irreversible. It is for those concerned to
> bring forward proof…”.
Only hormones actually never do irreversibly destroy fertility in male-to-female cases. All the evidence is that, once hormones are ceased, it returns eventually.
> In April last year, French representatives in the parliament of
> the Council of Europe buried their political differences and
> joined with others to support resolution 1728 (2010), requiring
> member states to ensure that recognition of transgender people
> should not be contingent on a legal requirement for
> sterilisation or any other specific medical treatment.
The parliament of the Council of Europe has no power to require anything of member states. I would have expected PinkNews to know basic legal stuff like that.
> The sex of cis-sexuals does not have to be irreversible…
What on earth does that mean?
> Sterilization under these circumstances is akin to genocide of a
> group of people.
Oh heck, next the rhetoric will have it that we have a duty to forgo reassignment surgery and reproduce in order to perpetuate the “trans race”.
> them to undergo surgery and all it’s risks is wrong.
No one is forcing anyone to undergo reassignment surgery. To suggest that the surgeons who save our lives are participants in such barbarity is hate speech.
> Finally, there has been some amazing research this past year
> where it may be possible for trans people to use their own
> gonads to produce the hormones they need.
Gosh. Would you have a reference for that? Or is it just the latest step in the campaign against reassignment surgery?
The French are quite rightly taking the view that is fomeone claims to be female trapped in amale body they will abhor their male bits and will welcome providing proof of sterilisation as proof of being committed to living their new sex.
The ones who complain about these things are ths many psuedo-transsexuals who are really just crossdressers and transvestites are are not really transsexual.